Final Report: Hulsey/AE911Truth's WTC7 Study

Oystein

Senior Member
About 10 hours ago, AE911T put this on their Facebook page:
Source: https://www.facebook.com/ae911truth/videos/250378459429645/


At the bottom of the post I see a video preview and this text (preceded by a symbol of a video camera): "Tomorrow at 21:00".
I am a little confused now - has there been a presentation already? Will it be held tomorrow? I received an AE newsletter an hour before this Facebook post that said that the release of the final report is "now" only 2 days away - so tomorrow (Thursday), it seems.

At any rate, I see nothing new, especially no final report to download, either at https://www.ae911truth.org/ or the UAF project page http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/

I find it mildly curious that AE911Truth would direct people to their website for download and not the universities, and also that not Hulsey but an AE man gets to present it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

deirdre

Moderator
Staff member
I find it mildly curious that AE911Truth would direct people to their website for download and not the universities, and also that not Hulsey but an AE man gets to present it.
The University is likely shut down for the year. Which technically shouldn't effect uploading a paper, but "no crowds" due to coronavirus and Hulsey is pretty old..so I can see him not doing a presentation.
 

econ41

Senior Member
The University is likely shut down for the year. Which technically shouldn't effect uploading a paper, but "no crowds" due to coronavirus and Hulsey is pretty old..so I can see him not doing a presentation.
It could also be a form of protection. An old man who has given years of faithful uncontroversial service [then does this]. So why not let him fade away from the scene and at the same time take the spotlight off the UAF so it's culpabilty is not fully exposed. Bottom line "Hope the whole sad affair gets forgotten."
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Oystein

Senior Member
Seeing that they said in a previous news article the other day that they would have to change their plans around the release of the report because of the Covid crisis, I think deirdre more likely is closer to the mark:
Perhaps "presentations" includes anything in Fairbanks.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

Attachments

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
A rather significant change here, where they change the formula used to calculate K, changing it from 6,622 lbs/inch to just 552 !!

Metabunk 2020-03-25 11-53-41.jpg
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They have added the text "The movement shown is highly amplified for clarity. The actual scale of the displacements are presented to the right." to all the "falling over" type images, like:
Metabunk 2020-03-25 12-02-55.jpg

Closeup of that scale:
Metabunk 2020-03-25 12-03-17.jpg

E+3 means time 10^3, or times 1000. So the green there is around 1500 inches. Or 125 feet. That seems to be how much the building has been displaced in the "highly amplified" image. This suggests it's not highly amplified.

They mention it again here. Seemingly thinking it's actually just inches.
Metabunk 2020-03-25 12-30-25.jpg
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The old section 4.5 seems to have been totally removed.
Metabunk 2020-03-25 12-10-57.jpg

Metabunk 2020-03-25 12-10-13.jpg

The removed text:
Which reduces their analysis findings:
Metabunk 2020-03-25 12-18-48.jpg

As I remember the failure of all the core columns was a favorite hypothesis of Tony Szamboti
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
They appear to have responded to the criticism of their fake "dynamic analysis" by re-labling it "dynamic time history finite element analysis"

This is a new (short) section:
This kind of feels like a glossing over, but with the same result. The "dynamic analysis" is no such thing. "Time History Analysis" is really another term for nonlinear dynamic analysis.
http://www.ijscer.com/uploadfile/2015/0429/20150429075958589.pdf

They say:
Which seems nonsensical. The mass of individual structure elements does not change. Gravity does not change.

What does change? Velocity, yes, but also connections, contact, and collisions - none of which seem to have been modeled.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Anybody else missing their comments?
I didn't submit directly. But I get a couple of mentions:
And rather indirectly:
 

Trojan

New Member
So the two peer reviewers listed are either an acquaintance of Tony Szamboti or an acquaintance of Steven Jones (both having published on 9/11). What happened to impartial peer review?
 

benthamitemetric

Senior Member
I'm also attaching for everyone's ease of reference a word document comparison between the two reports (draft and final) that I prepared with Change-Pro (the professional document comparison software I use in my legal practice). This shows more clearly which graphics were altered, added or removed, and will let people copy and paste into their comments here any revisions of interest.
 

Attachments

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Szuladzinski is co-author of a paper with Szamoboti and Jones with is just a meaningless critique of the Bazant strawman.
https://metabunk.org/attachments/10....40038/?hash=d71480de88b60db9c9dc60a8423ad7e2
And Korol is a co-author with them on the Europhysics News article:
https://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016-47-4.pdf
Which also goes after Bazant.

So both seem to be firmly in the 9/11 truth camp.
 

Attachments

Oystein

Senior Member
Attached is my comments on the Draft Report which I had mailed to publiccomment@ae911truth.org - but they are not included in the "Public Comments" that were published yesterday: https://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/UAF-WTC7-Draft-Report-Public-Comments.pdf

I emailed them to Hulsey directly yesterday. No response yet.

(This PDF contains one edit on the first page: I deleted my real name and contact info under "Prepared by:" and substituted with merely "[Oystein]", and also the file name has "Oy" in place of my real initials)
 

Attachments

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
In AE911's presentation of the final report:
Source: https://youtu.be/KOooHlaA0pE?t=1745


Angle shows the ludricous tipping over animation:
Metabunk 2020-03-26 15-24-40.jpg

And says "this would be what that looks like", as the building goes on to do this:

Which he shows as if that's a perfectly normal-looking collapse of a tall building.
Metabunk 2020-03-26 15-30-01.jpg


Yes in the final report, as I noted above, they take pains to downplay how silly this looks by saying:
But if we look in the report for the static analysis they base this animation on, we have figure 4.14 (Final)
Metabunk 2020-03-26 15-35-36.jpg

And again the scale:

E+3, so x1,000, so displacements of 1,600 inches. Which is what is shown.

So we've got Angle saying "this is what that looks like", and we've got the report saying that's what the numbers are, and then we've got the report also say it's just a few inches.

They seem to have no idea at all what is going on. Perhaps the problem here is that old simulations were done years ago by Zhili Quan, and the newer writers (and Angle) don't fully understand them.

So what are AE911 telling us? That the building would tip over a little or a lot in the NIST scenario? Obviously the tipping over a lot, as described, is physically impossible - the result of a misapplication of static analysis to a dynamic situation. And if it's just tipping over a little, well then, that's what actually happened that day. Metabunk 2020-03-26 16-09-00.jpg
 

Attachments

Jeffrey Orling

Senior Member
I find much of their reasoning and assumptions hard to accept. If the entire building was moving down... it means that everything which held it up was no longer doing that. Their assertions is that the only way to accomplish this is CD of all the columns over 8 stories (to account for the FF movement).

However if the columns are displaced and the axial load paths interrupted...they become non performing... as if the column is no longer there.

While NIST didn't go there... and focused on an initiating event on floor 12-13... it seems that the explanation which matches observations is more like:

First event was in the NE quadrant which led to a complete interior collapse of that quadrant.
The first even caused the massive transfers on floors 5-7 to collapse and with that pull or push columns to the west in the core so that they were DISPLACED and non performing. When the core columns were non performing... there would be no more interior columns and the interior floor plates would collapse. So the east quadrant collapse led to a rapid progression of displacement/failures of the interior (core) columns from east to west (and accounts for the timing of the dropping of the roof structures) hollowing out the building.

But could the perimeter moment frame stand with the entire building hollowed out by the complete interior collapse? Not likely. The material from the interior collapse would almost certainly bulge outward... and in so doing exert lateral outward forces on the lower perimeter columns which supported the moment frame which began on floor 8. The moment frame had 57 columns on its four sides. But below it the support was reduced using "transfers" to only 26 columns. If these, 26 became non performing... the perimeter moment frame would collapse at essentially FF. This accounts for the "motion" and appearance of the collapse.

The north side had only 5 columns plus the shared corner columns
The east side had only 2 columns plus the shared corner columns
The west side had only 4 columns plus the shared corner columns
The south side had only 10 columns plus the shared corner columns

It is certainly plausible that a local failure in the NE quadrant kicked off the chain reaction. This could have been at the location NIST modeled. It also could have been lower or higher up... but it would have to kick off the progressive runaway collapse of the transfers on floors 5-7 to hollow out the interior.

And yes the building's perimeter would come pretty much straight down.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Jaytje

New Member
Looking at the comments on the final report from Hulsey, its obvious that the whole WTC7 collapse is a non-issue nowadays with engineers and architects. I wonder if truthers are going to complain about the fact that this was all paid for by AE911 so a little biased towards [the AE911 position], or about the collapse videos, which they seemed eager to do with the NIST collapse videos. I guess we won't see any comparison videos from that side coming anytime soon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top